Jemimah Hendrick, New Court Chambers
This article considers the ‘highly unusual’ Court of Protection case of Re EOA  EWCOP 20. It looks at the wider implications of P that presents with both autism and a history of being subjected to indoctrination. The article summarises the case, as well as providing an analysis of the issue of establishing a casual nexus between autism and the inability of P to make a decision. It also considers the particular difficulty of the premise that all should be done to assist P in regaining capacity when considered alongside the issue of indoctrination and how the two interact with each other.
In an effort to assist those involved in these cases there is also some practical advice on how to approach the issues discussed in this case and try and find a way forward in what is an incredibly complex set of circumstances.